All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Navigation

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to
use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

Please Log In to Continue

It looks to me that Clinton's biggest "problem" is that he did not hide behind "executive privilege" and tell congress to "bite me" when they asked for stuff. (At least not as effectively as the current guy.)

He could have learned a thing from the current president in that regard.

If he had done this... well, I'm sure he would have stacked up much better.;-)

I personally believe that both Clinton and Bush (take your pick) are morally corrupt and not fit for "Leadership". The problem gets made even worse wh

The problem gets made even worse when you take into consideration that congress is unwilling to be led.

I don't know what you mean by that. Congress doesn't lead, they are led. They should lead, as they are the most powerful body in the country (don't believe the nonsense about coequal branches of government, it's not true).

Too damn many people worried about getting re-elected.

Agreed. This is why I am for term limits.

While I'm all for democracy (beats all of the options) I think something if seriously wrong when our system presents Gore vs. Bush and Bush vs. Kerry as your "best candidates".

There are many reasons for this, of course. One of my favorite reasons to fight against is the corrupt election process: the primaries, the debates, the financing, etc. Did you know that a group of Republicans and Democrats (the CPD [debates.org]) controls who is allowed into the Presidential debates, and that they collude with the two parties and candidates, and the press, to exclude third parties? That's just one example.

It was supposed to be a victory when the people started to vote for electors. I think I preferred it when the legislatures chose the electors. At least then you didn't have to worry about putting on a pretty face for Soccer Moms, you needed to appeal on an intellectual and policy level to elected officials.

I don't think it is nearly as bad as you seem to think, but it has some serious flaws, many of them correctable.

The problem gets made even worse when you take into consideration that congress is unwilling to be led.

I don't know what you mean by that. Congress doesn't lead, they are led. They should lead, as they are the most powerful body in the country (don't believe the nonsense about coequal branches of government, it's not true).

I have become very cynical and often scoff when I hear the terms "president" and "leader(ship)" in the same sentence. Even so, traditionally the president is considered the "leader"

Even so, traditionally the president is considered the "leader" of our government.

Militarily and diplomatically. Beyond that, traditionally, not so much, until FDR came around. I mean yes, of course he is the "leader," but the Congress controlled the legislative agenda before the 1930s. Now, the President seems to lead it, most of the time.

They are unwilling to be led.

I wish that were even more true than it is. They should not be led. They should do what they think is best regardless of what the

I just got the No Debates [opendebates.org]. It's pretty good, outlines all the evidence against the CPD and how it is violationg federal law. Open Debates has some big names behind it.

I saw a funny press conference (I think it's linked from above) where different people from the left and right support Open Debates, and they start arguing their pet issues against each other.:-) Like, guys, stay focused here...

: 1. What is the possibility of this being added in the future?
In the near future, the probability is close to zero. In the distant
future, I'll be dead, and posterity can do whatever they like... :-) --lwall

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.